Yes. It came to her mind during the live interview because she’d used it before in another media venue and hence it was closer to the front of her mind when she was on the spot than any less-dramatic lengthy primary was. Emphatically not because she was in any way trying to invoke the spectre of assassination. Hillary Clinton sometimes says stupid things when put on the spot in exactly the same way that all of the rest of us do. There is nothing at all sinister about the remark, merely tone-deaf. We’d all be perfectly happy to forgive even a total stranger that kind of slip of the tongue during a probing conversation.

I watched the TPM coverage of this in reverse order, catching up on my RSS feeds. I saw the clip of the interview in which she made the remark first, before I read any of the commentary on the use of the word “assassination”. I found the video clip totally innocent, and it would never have occurred to me to make any kind of sinister associations from it. The outraged commentary, when I read it afterwards, seemed a complete overreaction, a knee-jerk kind of thing that got totally out of control.

It’s not worth anyone’s bother. Really it’s not.

Granted 1968 sticks out, but it’s still a lousy analogy.

1) June in 1968 was 3 months in – New Hampshire primary was March 12. June for Hillary is 6 months in. No nominee after 6 months is a far cry from no nominee after 3.

2) As vic noted above, there were still big primaries left in ‘68. Not so in June this year.

So, was it a reference to a “you remember where you were” moment? I think that’s true, but for a misleading reference. Using it to make a legit point? Tacky. Using it to bullshit a little bit more? No-business-being-President tacky.

Clinton was in the middle of a live interview defending her decision to stay in a tight primary race (neither candidate has enough delegates to secure the nomination), mentioned instances where she could distinctly recall a deep primary race. Both cases are completely understandable. She would remember her husband wrapping up his nomination, probably to the hour. She would also remember the date of RFK’s assassination and recall that he was in the middle of a presidential primary campaign.

Sadly, partisans don’t want to reason in this way, they want Clinton out, and any event will do, to hyperventilate and declare a final gaffe that ends the campaign in favor of their guy.

Sadly, people who do so cannot be trusted to have integrity or deal with any issue honestly if it involves something where they are heavily invested.

Sadly, I’m not surprised, but Sadly, I am mightily disappointed.

that said, i’m sure i’m not off the mark. i think there’s a ton of agent provacateurs working as part of operation chaos, pretending to be hillary supporters, but their hateful diction gives them away.

You might want to read up on the history of the Democratic Party.
The 1980 convention mattered. Carter had a majority of the delegates at the end of the primaries but Ted Kennedy would not concede. Kennedy won several of the late primaries and Carter’s numbers were falling due to the Iranian hostage crisis. Kennedy, hoping to build on this, took the fight to the convention and relentlessly lobbied for the delegates to select him.

Jennifer said,

Just getting prepped for life in the United States of SHAFT.

“Dolomite is my name and fuckin up motherfuckers is my game”.

Wait, so you’re saying the analogy is intended to compare herself to Bobby Kennedy?

I agree with RB. I can’t WAIT to hear you explain that one.

So I won’t. The comparison is absurd. As has been pointed out over and over on this thread, any comparison between now and 1968 is absurd- the whole process has changed in the last 40 years. There hasn’t been a convention that mattered since. Perhaps because 1968 was such a huge clusterfuck for the party.

Because you are such a crappy writer I will take great pleasure in your explanation of exactly what she meant.

But hey, the important thing is to apply pressure on Superdelegates to back a flawed, inexperienced candidate who has no business to run for president. It’s also to continue the attempts to suppresss voters who might otherwise come out and vote for her; contributors who might donate to her historic run.

The low level that Obama people have stooped will never be forgotten. And guess what. It ain’t over till it’s over, which will be after the convention.

I want Pee Wee Herman. I’ll settle for whoever the dem nominee is.

You know, many of us who DO want to see Obama as the “Leader of the Free World” (yeah, right) do not believe your summation accurately describes him. Any more than Senator Clinton is defined by her laugh, her pandering and her personal-ambition-over-party statements.

They are both very bright, powerful people with lots of good things to say, and plans to execute. I just happen to come down on the side that thinks Barack Obama would be a better president, especially factoring where we are at this moment in history…

mikey

Very sad.

Both of those contests were fueled by the biggest state in the union having a June primary.

The biggest state in the union’s primary was 3 1/2 months ago.

The remaining primaries now have delegates which are about 1/5 the size of California’s.

Even forgetting about her stupid assassination comments, those two races have nothing in comment with this one.

The friggin current President of the United States decided not to run for re-election the last day of March, 1968. The real race began that day, 2 months before June, not 5 months. Of course it was still going on in June.